JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

ABC parody: I’m so over your ALPBC partiality…

” I’m over and over

tryin’ to excuse your point of view

I’m over and over

Your slant and bias too

I’m over and over

being treated like a fool

And I’m over and over

continually funding you..”

“When it’s over you’ll discover

What a free market can do

Hey you can show partiality…

Can’t wait to see that profit chart

turnover, takeovers…

It’s what the grown ups do

“Tell Grover, it’s over,

no more dog porn too…

For anyone looking to see our experience of ABC partiality, see how they sent a crew of four across the country to take two hours of debate footage and produce a segment where I say 18 non sequential words, and David says a sentence on national television that he never even said (thanks to the power of cheatin’-editing). (Read it here, see it here). Yes, it’s that bad, except when it’s worse. If you want to know what the dog-porn line refers too, see that sordid work blasted at Andrew Bolt’s. As Bolt says “Time to Cleanse the ABC”.

My view is that all the ABC staff who publicly condemned the “dog” and the climate bias, and insisted that the ABC should provide balance, should keep their jobs. Am I wrong, or is that a 100% funding cut?

They are serving themselves, not the nation. We should turn off the tap.

Good on you stuviewer

h/t Jim Simpson.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.6/10 (84 votes cast)
ABC parody: I'm so over your ALPBC partiality..., 8.6 out of 10 based on 84 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kv4c8tg

163 comments to ABC parody: I’m so over your ALPBC partiality…

  • #
    Ian H

    1,$s/bais/bias/g

    41

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    1) – Establish the ABC as a private, limited company, represented by 4,600,000 shares.
    2) – Gift each of the ABC’s current 4,600 employees with 1,000 shares each.
    3) – The employees now own the company. Let them do as they like with it (which is pretty-much what they do now) but with no more taxpayer $1.2 billion a year subsidy.
    4) – One single proviso – any sale of physical assets (buildings, equipment etc), or propriety assets (bandwidth etc), the proceeds of the sale revert to Government General Revenue.

    .
    Problem solved.

    565

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      MV,

      From what I can see from half a world away, they wouldn’t be able to make it if they continued as they’re going. No one would watch and they’d go broke. A free market in information would leave them like MSNBC here, which can’t pay it’s own way without regular infusions of money from George Soros’ organization.

      161

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Unfortunately, most countries subsidize their networks (much like we do NPR) in the “public” interest. But it is not in the “public” interest to misinform and propagandize. It is in the state’s interest however.

        40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I can always tell I struck a nerve by the red thumb(s). I wonder why someone who disagrees with me (isn’t that what the red one means?) can’t simply speak up and let me know what they think instead of remaining anonymous.

        What a world… :-(

        43

        • #
          Schitzree

          I gave you a red thumb on this post because I think it’s just whining to make a post complaining about the ONE out of over a dozen thumbs you got that was negative on a previous post. But atleast I explained it. :)

          11

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Roy,

        There are several companies globally, that compete in a free market for information. And they ain’t doin’ that badly.

        The secret is, providing the information that people want and need, and not providing anything else.

        Long live Public Broadcasters, is what I say. It is easy for those guys to look great, when they are compared to a low base.

        00

        • #
          Mark F

          In the USA, PBS and NPR get quite a lot of support from the usual suspects – Rockefeller, Packard, Hewlett, Moore, Soros. I doubt that it is without influence on their slant. Canada? Dunno. Stopped listening to CBC years ago – couldn’t stand the nausea.

          10

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Just for everyone’s edification, I happen to know that of the $1.2 billion spent on the ABC each year, a little over $150 million is spent on transmitting their various services from over 600 sites across the country. The services include ABC Local radio, ABC news radio, ABC FM radio, JJJ, ABC Digital radio, ABC Analog TV (being progressively switched off), ABC Digital TV (replacing the analog service). The split between TV and radio is about 50/50.

      Going with MV’s solution, I doubt they could raise the money to pay for these services let alone salaries or content.

      112

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Roy Hogue

        MV – No one would watch and they’d go broke.

        Truthseeker

        Going with MV’s solution, I doubt they could raise the money to pay for these services let alone salaries or content.

        Yes, and your point is . . . .

        .
        And as they went broke they could argue redundancy packages with their own Management Committee, duly elected from their own Proletariat. Nothing to do with government or the taxpayer.

        What’s not to like?

        200

  • #
    PeterS

    I expect that the ABC will be sold off, shut down or changed dramatically as socialism dies off in this country, at least I hope it dies off. In fact I doubt the ABC would even survive in Russia today since many of the people there are now Christians (Russian Orthodox – virtually identical to Greek Orthodox apart from the language of course). Even Putin goes to church, not that it always means much in and of itself.

    113

  • #
    Tim

    Why is ABC management not able to reign-in their employee’s rampant leftist propaganda? It’s regularly inserted subtlety into just about everything, from interview choices to news items, science programming and even comedian’s jokes.

    Answer: the inmates are running the asylum.

    151

    • #
      Peter Miller

      To understand how government funded media really works, it is worth watching the Skulls movie from 2000.

      Here a self-selected ‘elite’ stops at nothing to protect its own interests, which is primarily that of its own self-perpetuation. In the similar case of the ABC, left wing ‘progressives’ are welcome and almost everyone else is excluded.

      Not surprisingly, in this type of working environment the first three casualties are truth, accuracy and quality.

      112

  • #
    John Brookes

    Bring back the real Bananas in Pyjamas! The animated version just doesn’t cut it. Biggest mistake the ABC made in the last 10 years.

    111

    • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      BIP was definitely the pinnacle of ABC achievement. Its been all downhill since then.

      70

    • #
      Ian

      Surprising to read anything from you here after denigrating this and other sceptical sites on the revoltingly moderator manacled SkepticalScience.
      Your comment for anyone that missed it is “John Brookes at 18:18 PM on 8 October, 2013 Having been a regular poster at Jo Nova’s blog, where the thumbs up/down have been there for a while, I can say I quite like them. A quick scan for lots of thumbs down leads me to comments that are more interesting. It also gave me a goal for a while – to try and get as many thumbs down as I could.
      But all skeptic blogs seem to be, dare I say, less skeptical these days. Too many gullible skeptics..”

      If you are so dismissive of these blogs why contribute unless you too are a gullible sceptic (no I won’t use the American spelling)? Or is it so you can feel superior to all of us?

      Reading the account from Jo about her interview and the skit on the Chaser has really made me so angry but I doubt that railing against the ABC will any effect. Not sure how many of you read the Sydney Morning Herald but have a read of the comments there to see how many of their readers submit uninformed rants that are full of anger and spite and venom and malice and hate and I use the word advisedly, for the current government and the newly installed PM. These guys love the ABC and in fact if they could harm Abbott and this government but in so doing would damage Australia, they wouldn’t hesitate for a second. i work in a university and you will never ever be able to overcome the serried ranks of academics lined up in support of the ABC. Personally I prefer the ABC to the commercial channels but like many here I loathe their bias and self satisfied smugness and hope that someone will eventually seek more accountability from the ABC but i doubt it will happen.

      92

  • #
    King Geo

    According to Antony Green’s Federal Election Calculator the ALP received 33.4% (1/3rd) of the vote. Given that the ABC is so “left”, then that is 2/3rds of voters who probably wouldn’t bother watching any of the ABC’s current affairs programs, especially Q & A, which is so “left” (including the live audience) that Karl Marx would be rolling around in his grave with glee. I for one never watch ABC’s current affairs programs – I gave that up years ago. But it is not only the ABC which is “left”. I like listening to talk back radio here in Perth so 720 ABC is a big no no – but there is a problem – recently 882 6PR has also drifted to the “left” – which astounds me – they lost me & also some of my friends – it will be interesting to see if their ratings suffer, especially as WA has a strong “right wing” support base judging by the recent Federal Election results, Antony Green’s website shows that in WA the Coalition vote was nearly double that of the ALP.

    120

  • #

    Tonight the ABC 7:30 report discussed the unemployment problem in Tasmania, and the answer apparently was “more higher education”. The point about whether the Tasmanian government could make it easier for businesses to employ people was not mentioned — there was no discussion about whether Tasmanian legislation made mining, fishing, farming or forestry less appealing to business. I don’t think this was a deliberate omission. I think it just didn’t occur to anyone.

    Soon after that, a glossy advert showed a fantasy bubble popping and releasing balloons — I think it was an advertisement for the ABC.

    If the ABC stopped paying for advertising for itself, perhaps they could afford one free market economic adviser instead?

    452

    • #
      janama

      No No Joe – they are spending a fortune on outside consultants already.

      40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      All we hear down here is “Tourism”. Its the Greens singular response to questions on the economy, jobs and growth. Whenever you hear a green saying something along the lines of (this is as close a quote to the greens industry spokesman as I could find) “We need to move away from the old industries and subsidised workplaces and explore modern opportunities for jobs and growth”…

      Please if you are able ask this simple question. “Sir, without mentioning the words “Eco Tourism”, please provide examples of the modern opportunities for Tasmania you mentioned in your previous answer”

      Basically what happens is their heads explode, so stand back. They have nothing, nada, zero to offer other than shutting things down, no mining, no expansion of the international port capabilities, no forestry…. zip!

      I overheard a conversation in my local pub the other day, it went something like this….

      greeny 1 “We are finished now, Abbott is in, its all over”
      greeny 2 “Yup I am so afraid for my kids, I don’t want to see the planet die”
      greeny 1 “we are terrified”
      greeny 2 “I hear they are going to allow some of the plantations to be unlocked again”

      At this point I was starting to walk over to them when my partner grabbed me and gave me “the look”, so we left.

      PLANTATIONS?????? This is how insane its got here now, the forest industry has been so curtailed there are large swathes of plantation timber that cant be managed properly and already have enough undergrowth to prevent harvest. They are a bushfire disaster waiting to happen and when they go, the timber goes with them, no one wins. Least of all the flora and fauna….

      But that’s ok, the ideology is intact as far as the eco-loons are concerned and that’s all that matters.

      360

      • #

        @ Safetyguy66:

        Good points.
        “All we hear down here is “Tourism” ”
        And, as anyone who has had anything to do with economic development knows, unless you are in the top few destinations in the world, tourism is fickle.

        80

    • #
      Richard of NZ

      I always ask people who say that more higher education is the solution to everything whether they like to eat, live in structures and travel? They invariably state that they do. I then ask whether, if they had a higher degree, they would then produce, transport or sell food, physically build and maintain structures or drive buses or planes? The answer is no. The argument continues, if everybody has an advanced degree, who does the essential work for the lifestyle they demand? Stunned mullets then come to mind.

      220

      • #
        Ian

        You must be deranged Richard! You must know that everyone must get a university place!! Never mind if they’re not of an academic bent, give them the chance etc etc. I’ve worked as an uni academic for many years have a PhD and I guess I am fairly good with my brain. But so what? Why is academe so special? I can’t weld, or fix electrics or make things or put in kitchens or build walls. Sure I can teach but as you so rightly remark it is essential to have people who can do things. Not every one is suited to academe but it seems that if you don’t go to uni you’re some sort of sad loser. What a load of bollocks that is . Of course you’re not and I think it ludicrous that this uni for all attitude is so prevalent. I envy tradesmen who, if I have a problem, can so quickly and easily can see how to fix it and do just that while I stand there amazed at their skills. There needs to be a bit of a rethink about university for all as Australia desperately needs the skilled tradesperson.

        160

        • #
          Debbie

          Thumbs up from me Ian.
          We need both and they are equally valuable and the lack of respect from academe is simply appalling

          50

        • #
          scaper...

          Well put, Ian.

          I’ve got a couple or so trades under my belt but enjoy engaging with academics as it broadens my understanding. Have had many a client, especially lecturers from Brisbane Universities and have had a hoot challenging their ingrained perspectives.

          What the building industry has offered me, problem solving through lateral thinking processes as every situation is different and no orthodoxy can cater to the free thought required.

          Oh, don’t watch, listen or read anything ABC as it is under-stimulating. In this day and age, not required to inform or whatever the community.

          70

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Ian in the 1980′s we got the Smart Australia idea from none other than Hawke/Labor and what happened? trade and tech schools fell by the wayside to get kids to focus on “higher education” so of course society lost the momentum and capability of producing quality tradesmen and even though we’re trying to catch up I’m afraid the dedication to standards isn’t there.
          Over the years even trades outside of my expertise have been so bad at their jobs I have taken it upon myself to learn them just so I know it’s been done to a good standard, I service and repair my own vehicles (especially motorbike) and the only time I couldn’t do the job for lack of tools or time it was still stuffed up by the mechanic! Arrrggghhh.
          On one of my certificates it reads,

          The Craftperson is reminded hereby of the ancient traditions that lie
          behind the practice of all crafts and of the unbroken chain of
          Craftpersons who have contributed to our well-being.

          The Craftperson is therefore earnestly enjoined to follow in the steps
          of those who have gone before and to employ the recognized skill at all
          times for the service and progress of the Public Weal.

          I’m still proud of my certificates but maybe one of the few gullible fools that is.

          40

          • #

            Interesting debate this. I believe that knowledge and wisdom are the two sides of the same coin. I believe we gain our knowledge from our educators (generally) but the overriding source of our wisdom comes from our parents and peers in our formative years. The job we do as parents is perhaps the most important we’ll ever do. I guess what I’m trying to say is a persons morality and decency comes before their education. Education is never a bad thing but being educated and venal seems to me a complete waste of time and resources. And so we come to the AGW debate….

            10

            • #
              Annie

              ‘The job we do as parents is perhaps the most important we’ll ever do.’

              So true. The job of parenting is grossly underated these days. Is this part of Agenda 21/Frankfurt School/Common Purpose etc?

              00

        • #
          Annie

          Quite right Ian. Apprenticeships to train in the necessary skills would be far more sensible than uni-for-all Mickey Mouse degrees!

          00

    • #
      Maverick

      Not only did mining, forestry, marine technology, marine manufacturing etc not occur to them, they clearly did not research either. A couple of hours looking at the readers comments on the Launceston Examiner, would give the ABC the other side of public opinion which is pretty easy to understand:

      Reduce red-tape and green-tape to expand forestry and mining, build another large hydro dam so we can export more electricity, reduce government spending in health administration, borrow and increase government spending in roads and port infrastructure, reduce the local councils from 28 to about 14, government must assume the responsibility for development headworks expensive as its ridiculous if developers have to build sewage plants and reservoirs so State Water can collect the rates, expand the number of state politicians back to the number it was previously so we have a chance of getting some brain capacity in parliament, lower electricity costs more for bulk power users (a 50 year old idea in Tasmania that worked) to encourage power hungry manufacturers back to the state, re-write the town panning legislation to encourage development on rubbish agricultural land rather than protect two acres blocks of rock and weeds, expand the very successful major events strategy (Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Targa, Sydney to Hobart, Taste of Tasmania, Festival of Voices), provide payroll tax incentives and other incentives for ship, boat and marine product manufacturers, hang onto our poppies monopoly with all your energy (A company today is seeking approval to grow poppies n NT), expand water security for farmers (in fairness they are slowly doing this) to increase crop outputs, provide incentives for seafood value-add processing, provide incentives for vegetable value-add processing, and whyile we are at why is that Tasmania could not make at least some of Johnsns and Johnsons opiate based drugs rather than simply shipping the raw materials to the US – we have lower electricity (at least should), lower land costs. Of course we have higher freight costs which is something that needs to be fixed, but to be honest I dont know how.

      I could go on but I feel like a broken record and as SafetyGuy says, all they bang on and on about down here is eco-tourism. And when they are not talking about that they have these immense brain-fades and think we are going to turn our economy through Hors d’oeuvres and venue hire through gay marriage ceremonies.

      10

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Ref. Jo’s stitch-up by the ABC. If you consort with chickens, you end up covered in chicken poo.

    80

    • #
      grayman

      Kevin, another way to put it is, You cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit!!

      60

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        But can you make chicken shit if you feed them on salad ?

        160

        • #
          grayman

          Eddie, had to give you a thumbs up for the comeback, Great.

          40

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            Thanks. You’re a Sport. But the words were all yours. I only put them in the right order ;-?

            30

            • #
              grayman

              Eddie, the saying comes from my 25 yrs. as a auto mechanic. When so many customers would come in with vehicles that they have beat into the ground and think that it should not be that much money to have it back in tip top shape. Hense: chicken salad out of chicken shit. I am quite sure that people of other craft trades would agree!

              00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Another song to love! :-)

    I hope you get back an honest bastion of real journalism instead of the arse (for you Aussies) kissers you have now. Things seem to be changing so keep pushing in the right direction.

    60

    • #
      Yonniestone

      It’s a great song Roy originally done by Lloyd Price and I believe our own Johnny O Keefe whom my parents watched perform live in Melbourne back in the day, they said JOK used to out perform many of the headline American acts (no offense) and was a real powerhouse performer.

      20

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Jo, am interested in your hint about what’s new with Scafetta.
    Will you be talking about this paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402 ?
    The IPCC’s max warming is over double his model’s max warming.

    On the other hand, Scafetta still feels some sort of need to politically “correct” his model prediction by adding half the IPCC warming component onto the basic astronomical prediction. True, his model doesn’t fit the last 30 years without it, but I don’t think he’s considered the possibility that neither the IPCC CO2 forcing nor his astronomical model are correct. Mixing 50% wrong with 50% wrong doesn’t make it 100% right.

    Different empirical models based on solar magnetic warming and a recurring PDO ocean cycle (eg Dan Pangburn) give a good fit to the data too, yet they predict cooling from now on, no warming at all, assuming the forecast of sunspots is correct (and very much the same as Scafetta has assumed).
    Even the “ak-index” of geomagnetic activity just by itself bears such a close resemblance to the temperature record that it would be a safer bet for predicting the climate – if we could predict average geomagnetic declination.

    I’m leaning towards the sunspots, not Scafetta.

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Andrew McRae:

      a very interesting paper which I have saved to re-reading.

      A correlation of 0.85 is certainly better than the 0.65 for (adjusted) temperature and CO2.

      These matters get discussed regularly at Tallbloke ( http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/ ) as I am sure you know.

      The variations of the sun certainly have far more to do with climate change than CO2. As for the planetary influence on the sun, I remain sceptical except for possibly Jupiter and Venus which have the largest gravitational effects. The idea that Pluto has an influence on the sun is stupid. Were it not for Theodor Landscheidt’s accurate predictions I would dismiss the idea. Since he died in 2004 he hasn’t been able, nor needed to, ‘adjust’ them, unlike the IPCC, and his record is far, far better than theirs. It remains to be seen, although not by me, whether his prediction of cooling for the next 75 years is correct.

      30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        It is certainly interesting and since I only discovered it last night I was only able to give a first impression without digging into the justifications. Is his 60-year harmonic purely derived from a temperature FFT or is it from the NAOI, and does that mimic (or perform better than) Pangburn’s slightly more contrived sawtooth ocean cycle? I can’t say.

        Both Scafetta and Pangburn have an underlying natural repeating cycle with no inherent trend as one temperature component, but by itself that won’t match history. My impression is that Scafetta matches the historic trend by injecting it with IPCC GCM warming, whereas Pangburn matches the history simply by integrating the average sunspot count with Second Law inspired radiative cooling. Pangburn has a physical basis, Scafetta has IPCC faith. First impressions anyway.

        Scafetta has a historic basis for his solar cycle prediction which seems quite good, so I wonder how Pangburn’s would look for 2100 if he used Scafetta’s solar cycle predictions. Perhaps those two should work together.

        Thanks for the reminder of Tallbloke’s place, I should get out of my JN bubble more often, perish the thought. :)

        Neither will I know if the predictions for the next 75 years are correct. Apparenly I can only afford to live until 2048 even though my lifespan may be until 2060. Damn those banksters and Keynesian monetarists!

        20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          The best place for Landscheidt’s papers is John Daly’s site http://www.john-daly.com/ There is another in Germany.
          WARNING: Landscheidt was described as a virulent critic of the IPCC, but what was shocking then is probably a majority opinion now.

          I am not an expert but Landscheidt worked on Newton’s idea that the sun revolved around the centre of gravity of the solar system (barycentre), because of the gravitational ‘pull’ of the planets. This led him to see a (roughly) 60 year cycle and a (rough) 178 year cycle. I believe that others who have adopted this approach have abandoned Landscheidt’s method. As I said it involves a lot of planets with little gravitational pull on the sun. I think David Archibald and some in South Africa use something similar.

          For the record, it 2003 he predicted
          1. the 2005 el niño would not be as big as that of 1998
          (which he had predicted as big before anybody else even decided it would happen).
          2. the 2007 el niño would be small
          3. the world would start cooling esp. in northern Europe from 2007, with more la niña episodes.
          4. the coming cool period would last until roughly 2087. A Grand Minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum.

          As I remarked he didn’t have the opportunity or the need to “adjust” unlike others you might name.

          10

          • #

            Hi Graeme,
            Re your comment “As I remarked he didn’t have the opportunity or the need to “adjust” unlike others you might name.”
            Are there genuinely valid reasons why anyone anywhere would “adjust” the data in relation to global average temperatures?. Surely any adjustment is subjective and fraught with agenda.

            00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    What I would like to know is, what made all “public” broadcasting on the Government dole in Western countries go completely Communist over the past 20 years?

    You think ABC is tilted to the bright pink end of the spectrum? Then you haven’t listened to the NPR in the US or CBC in Canada. That is so flaming Tomato and Watermelon Communist I can’t stand it

    60

    • #
      Spetzer86

      I listen to NPR so I call yell at the radio on the way to and from work. They usually have about 40% of the whole story.

      40

      • #
        Mark D.

        I sometimes tune AM talk radio in then FM NPR and bounce back and fourth between them. Good for raising blood pressure.

        A pity too, NPR has some interesting shows but a normal person can’t help gagging on the Leftist shieit they so liberally fling around.

        40

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      A few possible causes are the Fabian Society, George Soros, or Goldman Sachs.

      60

      • #

        Rather than highlighting individuals or organisations, I would level it a major trend. With the death of ideology following the collapse of communism, and the burn-out of the New Right, politicians needed something new. They tapped into the popular culture of the soap opera, where everything is sensationalist opinion and there are no long-term underlying values. The greatest experts are the “spin” doctors, and complex arguments are reduced to sound-bites. The substance does not matter. General elections are reduced to a talent show, with all the tears and tantrums. Even science is about popular votes and scaring the bejesus out of people, rather than about saying something meaningful that is vulnerable to being contradicted by the evidence and obtaining a perspective based on the best available information.

        70

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Yes, perhaps it is completely natural or random.
          In their work “The Fourth Turning” Strauss and Howe certainly make the point that civilisation revolves in this cyclical pattern, as has been demonstrable since the time of the Etruscans.
          The idea that one generation behaves the way it does due to the upbringing provided by the previous generation certainly provides a mechanism by which the cycle of spring summer fall and winter analogy could regenerate.
          However, I happen to think there is plenty of evidence that the change in public opinion has been helped along by some particularly powerful folk with a clear objective.

          40

  • #
    MadJak

    I Agree Completely – $1Billion per annum for a left wing Advocacy group is just crap.

    70

  • #
    WhaleHunt Fun

    Selling it off or gifting it to the staff are both unjust.
    Both options lack the vindictive evisceration of the staff’s personal finances that is a necessary component of the payback that is fair and reasonable for the base abuse of trust shown taxpayers.

    1 No staff may resign.
    2 Fines will apply for each violation of balance.
    3. Each fine will apply to every employee.
    4. A public interest moderator will be appointed to oversee the assessment of balance.
    5 The moderator and their staff will assess all ABC pronouncements beginning with the start of the Howard government. So fines will apply retrospectively.
    6. All assets of all family members of all staff will be available for funding payment of fines. This includes hair, teeth, the family home, all family pets, any stem cells and one litre of blood every six weeks.
    7. The moderator shall be Rupert Murdoch, as he is impartial, being an alien, as the ABC insists.
    8. The moderator shall be entitled to the use of all stem cells for prolonging life so as to make this situation permanent.
    9 And gardener Rupert did farm the ABC staff, and it was good.
    10. Amen.

    1111

    • #
      Winston

      I see Getup trolls are out in force. Not a subtle bone in your body “WhaleHunt Fun”. I would suggest that most libertarians would baulk at such a Marxist, Finklesteinesque answer to the problem of an impartial ABC which has become a biased left wing instrument in direct opposition to its charter.

      I would say to you that the ABC deserves only to be held to account. either they enter a commercial organization where they are free to express any opinion they like, no matter how biased, or they continue as they are and adopt a fair representation of the Australian population who are very slightly right of the political divide in attitude and inclination, and who are presently completely unrepresented by our national broadcaster.

      Trust a left winger to come up with left wing solutions while trying to parody those on the right. Pathetic.

      70

      • #
        WhaleHunt Fun

        Utterly wrong. Do good from now on does not provide justice to the taxpayer for decades of taking public funds and not providing the service being paid for. Do good from now on is a mandatory behaviour. Suffering excruciating punishment and seeing their family ruined and physically debilitated for their past actions is a small step towards compensation for the taxpayer.
        Bugger libertarianism. That can apply when the books are balanced. When the staff and their children are anaemic, penniless, homeless and toothless; then can libertarianism be allowed, possibly to apply to these lowlifes.

        514

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Your not a well man….

          40

          • #
            WhaleHunt Fun

            I feel better thinking of the staff sitting on the getter’s edge, head in hands with starving waifs beside them. The image brightens the day,

            411

            • #
              WhaleHunt Fun

              whoops, gutter, not getter.

              28

              • #
                CyrilH

                I would never have thought that I could agree with such action as suggested by WhaleHunt but I am now inclined to agree with him. The far left has been conducting an unremitting war against the basic values of our society, against conservatism, and against free market capitalism, that is all the things that have made our country what it is and they are winning. It will end with the tyrants of the left doing to people like Jo and, therefore, us what WhaleHunt is suggesting be done to them.

                The right side has been in a mode of appeasement similar to the British establishment during the 1930s. Time to understand what is at stake here. There should be no toleration given to our stated enemies. They should be crushed and driven from the field of battle. Maybe then we will be safe from dictators and petty tyrants for a generation or two.

                43

        • #
          mc

          So, punitive totalitarian cruelty is your response to the issue? You really are quite the charmer aren’t you whaleslaughterfunboy. Most regular posters here will see this sort of commentary as pure bile. Your vicious sentiments might find a more receptive audience at a site that celebrates “the joys of sadism”.

          00

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Precisely, the whole socialist bent is dictate and control. 99.99% of left rants start with some statement regarding the proposed method of compulsion before the subject matter is even explored. Look at how many points on that list are methods of punitive compulsion, its a mindset.

        The sad fact is that people who cannot think for themselves and rely on the position of their movement or “action from the Government” to achieve anything will always be short of ideas beyond the basic leftist norm, groupthink can only advance as fast as the smartest person in the group, who has to break out of the sheep psychosis to think originally, doesn’t happen very often.

        “It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now–independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbours–are essentially those on which the measure of an individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed, then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.”

        ― Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

        And they bleat as one in protest….

        80

        • #
          WhaleHunt Fun

          I thought up the punishment by myself.

          Your call to not rely on the government for compulsion smacks of incitement to act by oneself, against the staff. This would be illegal. Besides, no one person has the resources to exact appropriate punishment. Governments are needed only for those things which non-government entities cannot do well. Financially and emotionally crucifying large numbers of people is something only governments and casinos do well.

          45

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Safety guy, let’s have a coffee, or a beer. [snip. Are you sure you want a phone number published worldwide?] ED

          20

      • #
        WhaleHunt Fun

        The punishment is crafted as a leftwing model because leftardism is the chosen lifestyle of the parasites that throng together to form the Institution. The irony of using a ‘punish the group for the crimes of the member’, is clearly lost on you. Groups, under leftardism, share in the produce of the members. So they can share in the punishment produced.
        If it were not for the beautiful irony of this, then other freemarket measures would, of course be attractive. Auctioning the rights to execute comes to mind as a money spinner, but lacks the comedic ecstasy of punishing them with their own philosophy.

        47

        • #
          eb

          Ah, Whaley, love your stuff.

          24

          • #
            Winston

            On cue,

            Getup troll Mk Trois (Mk Deux at #21 below) . Strangely reminiscent of “Ben”, “Adam Smith” and associates appearing en masse for the convoy thread- somebody feeling a bit threatened, perhaps? They particularly like to reinforce and reply to one another, helps make them feel a bit secure in the little frightened worlds they inhabit, I suppose.

            20

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          You’re either making fun of conservatives or have swallowed too many mezcal cactus buttons, in either case, you’re wasting cyber real estate

          40

      • #
        Considerate Thinker

        I agree with you Winston, Authoritarian rule by regulation and punishment of those with opposing thoughts is the Leftist Mantra. We don’t want to go down that path. Defunding is probably the last resort…rather holding the ABC to account for even handed reporting, allowing alternative views by sceptical scientists equal time – or better given their past record…would be a just start in the way to fulfilling their Charter. Beware the sheepskin wearing wolves trying to getup your nose, they are just responding to their loss at the last election and the prospect of Clive with the balance of power,,,,green hell.. but amusing too in one sense, poetic justice…

        50

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Meanwhile in Britain the BBC, recently humbled by one scandal after another and another … has realised it can’t be seen to go on like this, so it’s trying to play an almost penitent ‘Its Your BBC’ line. Here’s the new Director General’s speech on the way forward fro the BBC from Wednesday
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/dg-speech-main.html

    With the transcript here

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2013/tony-hall-vision.html

    I wonder how long that will last.

    Hasn’t it all been heard before, here in 2003

    40

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    I never really bought into the “ABC is left biased” argument much over the years. However this election the ABC showed enough of a lean to even get me thinking about its relevance when it is clearly lumbered with the usual collection slight, metrosexual men who ride bicycles and solid women with more tattoos than the late Chopper Read. (note: I make those generalisations having been given licence by Naomi Oretsky calling me a “middle aged white technophobe without ever meeting me)

    When the people in the top and middle of the organisation basically mimic the makeup of one political group in this case the left of labour and the greens, then its going to be extremely difficult to get a balanced viewpoint. I think the ABC is in that place now and having strayed so far from it’s charter, the time may well indeed be right to examine it’s relevance.

    110

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Safety your being too kind :)
      I would say the extreme labour and greens represent a type of freak show that isn’t even entertaining, I barely watch it now but you are always waiting for the left agenda or message to rear it’s ugly head which doesn’t take very long.
      Take Anna Rose, before entering Jo and David’s home and without ever meeting them before on “I can change your mind” she makes an insulting quip on what she believes Jo and David are going to be like, apart from bad manners this highlights exactly what you get when people are indoctrinated into activism instead of thinking for yourself.
      Interestingly on the BBC’s new Top Gear series last night Jeremy Clarkson made a couple of jokes/remarks on wind power and advocated coal/oil which was surprising to see it getting to the final cut and aired, perhaps things are changing and I think those guys will have an interesting story to tell in the future.

      50

      • #
        WhaleHunt Fun

        Perhaps it was allowed to go to air because the BBC see Mr Clarkson as totally irredeemably wrongheaded, and expect the viewing public to see him the same way. So that his opinions are seen only as a guide to what not to do.

        36

        • #
          Winston

          In spite of Whale Hunt’s pretence of being a right wing vigilante worthy of a Quentin Tarantino movie, this comment suggests the true allegiances of this faux conservative.

          Contrary to the above assertion, Jeremy Clarkson (while I have zero interest in Top Gear as a show or as even diversionary entertainment, or even motor vehicles in general) was seen on Stephen Fry’s QI on a couple of occasions now, and he was surprisingly erudite, knowledgeable and an entertaining raconteur with interesting insights and a wealth of life experience to draw upon. Which holds him in stark contrast to the usual cloistered lefty, whose opinions usually reflect an over-weaning exceptionalism, and the fact that they have rarely ventured from the bedroom of their parental home by the age of 35.

          Just precisely what is “wrongheaded” about criticism of wind farms, which in the UK have become the cash cow for the land baron ruling class at the expense of the fuel and energy security of their own nation, not to mention a blot on innumerable pristine landscapes that would otherwise be refuges for wildlife and an aesthetic pleasure for humankind?

          80

          • #
            WhaleHunt Fun

            You are confusing the reality of Clarkson with how he is seen by leftards. His, to them, horrifically politically incorrect jokes and enthusiasm for fossil fuelled diversions make him a veritable Satan. Thus they leave him loose on the basis that no right (left) thinking person will listen to him. Having no regard for the unwashed masses of non-inner-urban-leftists, they are constantly assured by their like that this is so.
            To these people, any criticism of wind turbines, homosexual marriage, abortion, or any of the other endless litany of leftard hobby-horses is wrong-headed. After all, they have never met anyone who disagrees.
            This inability to learn or change to rationality makes them an irredeemable handicap on society which requires a thorough cleansing.

            11

        • #
          Richard of NZ

          Alternatively some rare person of sense in the BBC knows that Jezza and the boys are the most popular programme on the BBC and if some rabid marxist tries to censor them they might jump ship to the privately owned opposition, taking 95% of the BBC’s viewing public with them.

          70

  • #
    Neville

    O/T I know, but here’s another good post from McIntyre.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/#comments

    I hope Jo and David have the time to read it.

    30

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      This was already known, and had been done by Trenberth and Hansen, it made its way to the IPCC revision

      IPCC did nothing new here

      10

  • #
    ROM

    They are serving themselves, not the nation. We should turn off the tap.

    Amen!

    50

  • #
    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      It used to be, that Communism couldn’t survive without Labour Unions buy in, now it’s Communism can’t survive, without man-made global warming.

      All of that effort of 50 years ago to stamp out Communism was wasted

      50

  • #
    Winston

    All of that effort of 50 years ago to stamp out Communism was wasted

    Senator McCarthy was quite “correct” in his belief that Communists were infiltrating the entertainment industry and influencing via subtle indoctrination and propaganda, and educational institutions were being compromised. History has since borne out the truth of KGB infiltration in all strata of the US government, the intelligence community and some parts of the broader society in general.

    However, the HOUAA hearings were such a reactionary and draconian response to this threat, attacking not merely the guilty “conspirators”, but the also peripherally “guilty” (for want of a better word), and the innocent merely expressing a difference of opinion, that it had precisely the opposite effect of its intention, that being the creation of a huge left-leaning, Marxism-inspired opposition among the academic mainstream that shifted them sharply to the hard left. It provided justification for “the cause” for those who opposed the witch-hunt mentality of a (then) modern day Salem.

    We have now turned full circle where the left are keen to embark on their own witch-hunt toward anyone who is more libertarian, even mildly anti-authoritarian, or who believes that governments in and of themselves are pathetic at organising efficient delivery of services (and thus become top heavy with “managers”, and ultimately just self-serving and self-perpetuating for their own sake, not ours), and bureaucracies having then spread like a metastatic cancer to overwhelm the unfortunate host, that being our democratic (in name only) society. With the prospect of an ever-increasing surveillance state becoming a reality, with ready access to every aspect of a person’s life through the march of technology, we should be examining the moral questions these advances bring up, and ensure oversight and safeguards are in place to avoid unfettered power such as this being placed in the hands of a privileged (and possibly unscrupulous) few. Yet, “the left” may find that those much dreamed of tools of control may just as easily be turned upon them once again, if only they had enough connecting neurones to realise it.

    Communism can’t survive, without man-made global warming.

    All the more reason to fight it tooth and nail (even over and above the lack of validity of the science), since this Marxist doctrine responsible for 100′s of millions of deaths a mere 50 to 80 years ago, and if given the opportunity they would do so again in a heartbeat.

    150

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Winston you probably know it but “The Naked Capitalist” by Cleon Skousen is an interesting alternate view on so called “McCarthyism” as he was actually there as an FBI special agent, the witch hunt/McCarthy analogy is used today in the tours done in Salem and presented as conventional wisdom to the masses, sound familiar?

      20

  • #
    cohenite

    The ABC has Standards to which it must conform. Those Standards are:

    Standards:
    4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
    4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought
    or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
    4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The
    ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
    principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary
    democracy and equality of opportunity.
    4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
    4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

    In my opinion the ABC has contravened every one of these Statutory Standards in its presentation of AGW.

    A Recent ABC report illustrates this contravention. When the IPCC released its 5th report, AR5, the ABC unquestioningly accepted the usual alarm ridden conclusions of AR5, ignored the manifest defects with AR5 and interviewed the usual pro-AGW commentators. The standard practice was followed whereby a prominent landmark, in this case Bondi Beach, was selected and shown after AGW had its catastrophic effect.

    The comments of these pro-AGW commentators shows the complete lack of critical journalism by the ABC:

    Penny Whetton, climatologist at CSIRO:

    So that means – we’re quite used to rainfall being a significant limitation to agricultural production and other activities. That may get worse in the future in the case of Australia.

    There was no mention of the fact that Whetton is married to a Greens candidate, has endorsed Gore’s farcical film, An Inconvenient Truth, or is a lead author for the IPCC and obviously an ardent supporter of AGW. Nor was there any mention that the predictions of drought by AGW have been proved disastrously wrong with the Wivenhoe dam disaster exacerbated by the dam being used as a drought storage rather than a flood mitigator due to the AGW based predictions of drought; or any mention of the billions of dollars spent on desalination plants in capital cities around Australia, all in mothballs with huge rentals still being paid to the builders; or any mention of the fact that actual rainfall had contradicted the predictions made by AGW.

    The ABC then wheeled out John Connor from the Climate Institute. Connor is a devout supporter of AGW and his typical hyperbolic language reflected that:

    We are a country of extremes, of floods and droughts, and they talk about climate change putting the weather on steroids and so that means we have more and more extreme impacts that accentuate those extremes that are there already.

    “weather on steroids”; Connor is an expert at giving pro-AGW news sources like the ABC pat catch-phrases. The ABC accepts these statements without quibble; yet everything in what Connor said is false and exaggerated. A cursory analysis would show that extreme weather events are not occurring globally or in Australia and New Zealand. In fact the IPCC AR5 report itself disavows any connection between AGW and extreme weather events in its SREX section. Chapter 4 of the SREX says:


    “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
     “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
     “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

    So we have the ABC referring to the IPCC latest’s report and interviewing known alarmists and pro-AGW persons who are interviewed about the AR5 report and permitted to make absurd statements completely contradicting what the IPCC report itself states! The ABC could hardly claim this was news since Nature, a pro-AGW journal, had said the same thing over a year previously.

    Also, as usual, the ABC interviews no one who has a sceptical position about AGW. The closest the ABC gets to an impartial commentator is Dr Rob Brander, an academic specialising in coastal geomorphology. In 2010 Dr Phil Watson, the principle coastal scientist with the NSW Department of the Environment wrote a seminal paper on Australian sea level which showed sea level rise is declining in Australia and New Zealand. Yet while alarmists like Whetton and Connor and Suzuki a week earlier, are giving carte blanche there is never a counter opinion from people like Watson.

    But this is Standard practice for the ABC. The many prominent scientists critical of AGW do not get access to the ABC platform. Professor Bob Carter is never interviewed; or Professor Stewart Franks; or Professor Peter Ridd; or Professor Murray Salby; or Professor Michael Asten; or Professor Garth Paltridge or any of the 1000s of sceptical scientists in Australia or around the world.

    The only politically palatable solution is to make the ABC a user pay service with annual fees and coded signal reception. Disadvantaged rural subscribers can claim it on their tax. Inner city elite subscribers can go to Bondi.

    150

    • #

      A few “outs” in those “standards”, eg “due impartiality”, “unduly favour”.

      20

      • #
        cohenite

        The ABC has many “outs”. But let me take the argument further.

        In a recent debate about privatising the ABC the ‘against’ argument was based on the ABC being “a civilising institution of society”. Clearly the ABC has deviated from this fundamentally with many ABC commentators demonstrating a complete lack of “civilizing”.

        So not is the ABC only presenting a pro-AGW viewpoint it is setting the standard of attitude towards and treatment of those who are putting cogent arguments against AGW.

        The argument for privatizing the ABC mainly consisted of the cost of the ABC, which is well over $1 billion annually. However, this $1 billion is not the real cost. The ABC’s support of AGW galvanizes and supports pro-AGW amidst bureaucrats and politicians so that both sides of politics have pro-AGW policies. These policies have already cost Australia over $12 billion and were likely to cost far more in the future if the ALP/Green coalition stayed in power, and will still cost several billion under the coalition’s Direct Action plan.

        If one accepts the premise that the ABC has been the main public media advocate for AGW then its true cost to Australia has not just been the $1 billion annual funding cost but the indirect cost to Australia of the many more $ billions spent and wasted on AGW, all of which has been made publically palatable by the bias of the ABC.

        It is on that basis of the much larger cost to Australia that the question of whether Australia can afford the ABC should be framed.

        120

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          Leftists voted out of your last election would fight to the bitter end to preserve their free political advertising.

          That is why they are so adamant about “preserving” this National “resource” or advocacy group, as it were.

          The same thing happened repeatedly with the NPR in the US

          51

  • #
    unbolt

    Why dont you just shut down the government like you loony friends in the USA, that will show them

    029

    • #
      cohenite

      So, you think the ABC is the government?

      121

      • #
        unbolt

        No, its government funded. Why do even the simplest fact prove too difficult for the Tea party brigade?

        027

        • #
          cohenite

          I’m not Tea-Party and climate facts are not too difficult for me which is why I am a sceptic.

          However, I must say irony completely misses the synapses of the green/left/progressives.

          201

          • #
            unbolt

            Have you looked up the word “sceptic” in a dictionary, I suggest you do. You post above is Tea Party crap and if the cap fits well…

            028

            • #
              cohenite

              Oh, a Troll.

              171

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              I’m sorry screwloose, but you’ve lost me.

              Cohenite, located in the Constitutional Monarchy of the Commonwealth of Australia, writes an article quoting verbatim the Charter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, then goes on to give examples of where he believes the ABC have flaunted that Charter.

              You somehow equate this with the alleged aims of a loose-knit group of political activists on the other side of the world, in the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, who may or may not support the current efforts of the lawful, duly elected Opposition in that country, to limit government spending.

              .
              My apologies, but I’m struggling to make the connection.

              241

            • #
              Brian G Valentine

              Have you looked up the word “sceptic”

              Your spelling is incorrect. It is “septic” as in “septic tank”

              Here are a few synonyms for “septic tank”

              - UN
              - California state government
              - EU
              - NPR
              - Australia climate commission
              - IPCC

              71

              • #
                unbolt

                Dont forget the “plot to for a world gevernment”

                018

              • #
                Mark D.

                Yeh the Tea Party one world gub.

                UNScrewed, WTF is your problem with democracy? Tea party people got ELECTED. Obamacare is just another law to be REPEALED. Get over it Leftist Commie Bastard.

                140

            • #
              Sean McHugh

              Have you looked up the word “sceptic” in a dictionary, I suggest you do. You post above is Tea Party crap and if the cap fits well…

              An ungrammatical ad hominem to what point? Are you capable of anything more than innuendo via name calling and non sequiturs? Let’s hear some actual argument from you. If you are incapable of that, best not to advertise it.

              By the way, once again we note that the US’ Tea Party is much more relevant to the Left in Australia than it is to rest of us.

              50

              • #
                Sean McHugh

                Unbolt said:

                Dont forget the “plot to for a world gevernment”

                Ah, you must be talking about the illustrious Red-Green-Brown.

                GREENS leader Bob Brown – whose party assumes sole balance of power in the Senate tomorrow – wants Australia to join an international push for a global parliament.

                And that’s not taken from Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt, the Australian or the Telegraph. That’s taken from the Labor/Greens’ Fairfax megaphone, The Age.

                He is gone now, but there are others of his unfortunate kind to take his place, many with a bigger hatred of this country.

                90

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          Unbolt said:

          No, its government funded. Why do even the simplest fact prove too difficult for the Tea party brigade?

          Jeeeezus! He didn’t say that the ABC was the government; he asked if that is what you thought. Why do even the simplest sentences always prove too difficult for leftists? Is it willful obtuseness? Does it make your faith easier to accommodate?

          90

          • #
            scaper...

            When a flamer refers to ‘Tea Party’ it is a sure sign of the collective of delusional group think is wandering outside their rhomboidal sphere of intelligence.

            Most probably reporting/skiting back to its delineative caricatures which are devoid of reasoned debate.

            Seen that movie too.

            50

            • #
              Sean McHugh

              Hi mate,

              I just posted similar comment before seeing yours. I suspect that there will soon have to be a variation of Godwin’s law for invoking the Tea Party, especially for doing so in such a juvenile way.

              50

              • #
                scaper...

                Must be a Russian thing.

                Hi Sean, say hello to G from us. Juvenile is the operative word.

                Oh, by the way…got your autographed copy of Taxing Air. Would make a good Xmas holiday read. Been having a jolly flick through myself before dispatch.

                20

              • #
                Sean McHugh

                Scaper said:

                Must be a Russian thing.

                Da.

                Oh, by the way…got your autographed copy of Taxing Air. Would make a good Xmas holiday read.

                Thank you. Looking forward to it.

                I still have some single-malt reserved for the dumping of the carbon tax.

                10

    • #
      Winston

      Getup Troll Mk Deux,

      I agree Obama was being a “loony” by shutting down the government because the Republicans wouldn’t pass “Obamacare” legislation, while all the other bills required to run government were able to be passed.

      Of course, you would know that no matter whether Obama (“Demican”) or Mitt Romney (“Republicrat”) had won the last US election, exactly the same paradigm would be in place- namely “protect the bankers” (both are complete stooges at the behest of Goldman Sachs, et al.- bought and paid for) at all costs with zero percent loans to the expense and detriment of average working Americans, bending over backwards helping Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, increasing mendicant class, declining educational standards, rising itinerant and part time employment in favour of regular full-time careers, burgeoning student loan debt, and most egregiously allowing the Fed QE to infinity until the inevitable collapse occurs of the US Dollar and the global financial system generally through US insolvency/bankruptcy and a hyper-inflationary death spiral that will follow.

      Either way, the only hope for the US is to split up into smaller state blocs which are more efficient, and more reflective of the differing goals and beliefs of the South, the North East, the South West and the Midwest, because the loose conglomeration of radically differing societies cannot (much as the EU will no doubt find) sustain in the long term.

      Btw, I notice spelling/punctuation/grammar is not your forte. No doubt a shining example of state funded indoctrination education, right “unbolt”.

      131

      • #
        unbolt

        U lesson in reality for you “because the Republicans wouldn’t pass “Obamacare” legislation,”. It was passed 3 years ago, it is law now

        015

      • #
        Mark D.

        Winston:

        Either way, the only hope for the US is to split up into smaller state blocs which are more efficient, and more reflective of the differing goals and beliefs of the South, the North East, the South West and the Midwest, because the loose conglomeration of radically differing societies cannot (much as the EU will no doubt find) sustain in the long term.

        Good idea.

        All we need to do is divide into three parts East coast, West Coast and the rest.

        But before that I think we could solve most of our political problems by passing a law that congress members must stay in their districts most of the time. They could meet in a virtual fashion and always remain accessible to their constituents. Too much of our politics is now driven by lobbyists. With congress sitting in their local offices it would make it much more difficult for professional lobbyists and with the congresspeople being physically close to the people, they would get a true sense of what those constituents want.

        Our system of representation is very good but gathering and meeting was originally developed around the travel limits of horse and railroad. Today technology could replace that. Once they go off to Washington they rapidly get manipulated (or corrupted) by the power brokers.

        20

        • #
          Winston

          Mark D and Roy below,

          My comment was not intended to suggest that the US should split ideally, but merely that the polarised nature of the country has increased, from where I sit at least, to such an extent, and congress has become such a Capitol centrist circus as Roy states below, that I don’t see how the people can continue to tolerate their needs and ambitions being so readily ignored in favour of a homogenized “America” that seems to exist figuratively rather than realistically.

          The main issue seems to be the mythic status you accord the POTUS, and how they need to be funded (and therefore compromised and beholden to the banker elite) to even run for President in billion dollar plus election extravaganzas. This guarantees that the common man is completely unrepresented by their Head of State by necessity. If one did represent the needs of the people, the candidate in question would be hobbled and then squashed before he even had the thought bubble to enter the race for the Presidency.

          I would defer to your greater knowledge in these matters however, and I certainly wouldn’t be so presumptuous to suggest I know better than your good selves.

          10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Winston, I like the idea even if it “shouldn’t” happen. For too long the bulk of the USA has had to live with the voting results of the insane Left Coast and the idiot East Coast. (no offense to Maine and those states south of the Mason Dixon Line).

            You surprised me with your comment and more so because I’ve been thinking the same for a while. Funny that anyone so far away would be bothering to give it a thought. Roy is less radical than me though :) and I understand why (if I recall correctly he’s in California so he would suffer greatly if they were their own country).

            Ultimately, I don’t care what happens as long as the Constitution stands as is where I reside. America was and is homogenized and that by itself is a catalyst for the positive if handled the same as in the old days.

            The wealthy including bankers have always had a biased influence. That may not be such a bad thing because bankers need us to succeed too. Our system of democracy should be able to level the field. But there are many abuses that go unchallenged. My biggest fear is that we are losing our religion. The result of that is something I cannot fathom.

            I very much appreciate your informed perspective on these and many other topics.

            20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Either way, the only hope for the US is to split up into smaller state blocs which are more efficient, and more reflective of the differing goals and beliefs of the South, the North East, the South West and the Midwest, because the loose conglomeration of radically differing societies cannot (much as the EU will no doubt find) sustain in the long term. — Winston

        Winston, the U.S. is split up into small regional entities, each quite capable of looking out for its real interests. They’re called STATES. The country is called The United States of America for that reason. Our flag even acknowledges that fact with 13 stripes standing for the original 13 colonies that joined together under the constitution and one star for each state currently in the union. The flag has changed many times as states were added. Ours is possibly the only flag that can change as new territories become states. If Puerto Rico should become a state a 51st star would need to be added. The symbology means something.

        The constitution was carefully crafted so that the federal government has only certain rights and responsibilities that are specifically enumerated in that document. All other rights are left to the states or to the people themselves by an explicit statement in the constitution. The federal government’s role was, by intent, limited to those functions that the individual states could not be expected to carry out, such as common defense and regulation of interstate commerce.

        The states are rightfully sovereign to a very high degree. But those who want political power find our sovereignty very inconvenient. So that sovereignty was the very first thing they set about to undermine.

        Our problem is to get back to the country our constitution calls for. That will go a long way toward fixing things.

        40

  • #
    Ross

    This is well worth 17 mins of your time. A TED talk in South Africa.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/10/ivo-vegter-on-green-misinformation.html

    h/t Bishophill

    You would never see this shown on the ABC , BBC or most TV channels elsewhere.

    101

  • #
    pat

    i don’t need to tell u i’m no fan at all of greg hunt’s, but this saga illustrates everything i’ve grown to hate about the ABC:

    23 Sept: ABC Lateline: Government will review IPCC report when its released
    EMMA ALBERICI: If we can stick to your particular action, you’ve said you’ll easily meet the five per cent emission reduction target by 2020…
    EMMA ALBERICI: So can you tell us, if we can meet the five per cent as easily as you suggest, why not have a more ambitious target?
    GREG HUNT: Well let’s do it step by step, because of course the strange thing about the carbon tax was that emissions went up, not down, from 560 to 637 million tonnes…
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3854893.htm

    WHAT ABC FACTCHECK DOESN’T SAY ANYWHERE IN THIS NIT-PICKING SEMANTICS PIECE IS WHAT HUNT WAS RESPONDING TO. NO MENTION AT ALL OF ALBERICI’S QUESTIONING:

    1 Oct: ABC FactCheck: What Greg Hunt didn’t say about the carbon price and emissions
    Mr Hunt has used modelling predicting an outcome in seven years’ time to say the carbon price as it stands today is not effective. The figures are projections, not fact, and cannot be used to make a point about emissions rising over the 15 months the carbon price has been on the books…
    The verdict
    Mr Hunt based his claim on modelling for the year 2020. He failed to mention that the same modelling projects emissions would go up further if a carbon price wasn’t in place. Mr Hunt’s claim is misleading.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-01/greg-hunt-carbon-emissions-misleading/4989750

    ABC keeps the MISLEADING, NIT-PICKING ABC FactCheck storyline alive & won’t take “no” for an answer:

    7 Oct: ABC Q&A: Corruption, China & Carbon
    GREG HUNT: …Between 2010 and 2020 our emissions go up from 560 to 637 million tonnes, according to the ALP’s own estimates and publications during the term of the carbon tax.
    TONY JONES: Okay, Greg. I’m just going to pause you there because our questioner has her hand up and I suspect she wants you to answer part of her question rather than a long political diatribe. Go ahead…
    TONY JONES: I am just going to quickly go to a video question to you, then we will bring in the rest of the panel. This is from Oliver Watkeys in Wyoming (NSW)…
    (VIDEO LINK)OLIVER WATKEYS: Mr Hunt, during a Lateline interview two weeks ago you said that under the carbon tax emissions went up from 560 to 637 million tonnes implying that this increase had occurred. However, a fact check conducted by the ABC revealed the 637 million figure was a projection of what carbon emissions would be by the year 2020 with the carbon tax in place. The same report revealed that emissions would be 8% higher in the absence of a carbon tax. Did you intentionally misrepresent the findings of this report and what are your predicted emission for 2020 under the Coalition’s Direct Action plan?
    ***TONY JONES: So, Greg Hunt, I think I just heard you change your line on that anyway in your last answer but perhaps you’d like to explain?
    GREG HUNT: No. No. Let me – I want to have this debate. Let me set this out. Last year in the Australian Government’s emissions projections for 2012, which looks out to 2020, the figures they set down – which is what you never hear from the ALP – in 2010, we had emissions of 560 million tonnes. In 2020, our domestic emissions will be 637 million tonnes. Despite what Oliver says, those questions, those figures are not in any doubt at all. Those are the figures which were set out last year and only days before the election…
    TONY JONES: I think the problem is when you originally talked about this, you didn’t say 2020. You said this is what the situation is now.
    ***GREG HUNT: That’s because Emma Alberici, in her question, talked about the 5% targets in 2020.
    ***TONY JONES: Okay. All right. So, anyway, but you are acknowledging that essentially what Oliver Watkeys is saying and what the fact checking unit found is actually correct, that…
    GREG HUNT: No.
    TONY JONES: You’re actually talking about what would happen…
    GREG HUNT: I have talked…
    TONY JONES: …in 2020 and, in actual fact, the figures would go down if the carbon tax was in place.
    GREG HUNT: I have talked maybe on 200 occasions about the transition from 2010 to 2020 with emissions going up under the carbon tax. The critical point is, for all of this talk it doesn’t work. Emissions go up. Electricity prices go up. So you get the worst of all possible worlds. You have no significant impact on emissions but you do have a significant impact on Australian competitiveness. Do I believe there is a better way, to answer Kate’s question: with every single fibre of my soul. Because if you really care about climate change, you’d actually want to reduce our emissions…
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3849933.htm

    back to FactCheck, no transcript, not a comment, but a chance to repeat that Hunt was “misleading”, according to the ABC:

    VIDEO: 8 Oct: ABC FactCheck: Greg Hunt responds to ABC Fact Check finding him misleading on emissions
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/greg-hunt-responds-misleading-emissions-claim/5008464

    11

  • #
    Robber

    Not my ABC.
    A= Abusive to those they do not like
    B= Blind to evidence they don’t want to see
    C= Compliant to those they like
    Agree with Cohenite that the ABC has contravened every one of its Statutory Standards.
    Those Standards are:

    4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
    4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought
    or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
    4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The
    ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
    principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary
    democracy and equality of opportunity.
    4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
    4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

    It’s time for a new ABC:
    A= Accommodating and respectful to all points of view
    B= Balanced
    C= Committed to free speech

    131

  • #
    pat

    meant to highlight IMPLYING in the rather-rehearsed-sounding question from Oliver Watkeys -

    OLIVER WATKEYS: Mr Hunt, during a Lateline interview two weeks ago you said that under the carbon tax emissions went up from 560 to 637 million tonnes IMPLYING that this increase had occurred…

    IMPLYING TO WHOM, OLIVER? to u and ABC FactCheck?

    let me do some IMPLYING:

    if u watch Watkeys’ eyes, it is obvious he is reading his question, whether by preparing it in advance himself & reading it from his screen, or because someone else prepared the script for him?

    31

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    As a chemist by original degrees, I am dismayed by the relentless chemophobia theme of the ABC.
    Their inference is that chemists have produced much of danger, little of benefit. This is a slur on my profession.
    Here are some sub-themes.
    1. Gardening. The promotion of “organic” methods that often have a throw-away line “Rather than use nasty chemicals …..”
    2. Climate. Demonising of CO2
    3. Cooking. Not arresting fads like using “ocean salt” as labelled, when virtually all of our salt is from evaporation of sea water.
    4. Fuels. Promoting biofuels over petroleum fuels, irrespective of poor comparative economics.
    5. Agriculture. Shameless promotion of “natural” fertilizers over chemical fertilizers, promotion of “natural” herbicides and pesticides over more effective synthetics.
    Some of these examples are minor, but in combination the incessant repetition amounts to brainwashing. There are more.
    If you seek some detail, here is an essay in which I complained to the official complaints body at the time (about 3 years ago). It was not taken up because it was alleged that some of my examples were unsupported by any official data (even when none had been collected).
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/ABC%20Gardening%20Aug_10Copper.pdf
    ………………
    My main objection to this ABC white-anting of chemists is that it is retrograde. Why should we go back to lemon juice and vinegar for cleaning, when we can use modern synthetic detergents? Why should we sprinkle blood & bone instead of a lesser amount of blended synthetic?
    Now that you are alerted to the chemophobia problem that the ABC has, I hope that you do not react to every further example you see of it. I simply switch channels or switch off.

    101

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      When I moved into Health and Safety the Technical Director said “now, never forget that 6 out of 7 of the most toxic substances for humans are organic”.

      Slightly O/T but I remember seeing an ad in a green magazine for Scott’s Phenyle a disinfectant safely used for over 100 years!
      That was the week we banned the use on site of coal tar cresylic acids as carcinogenic, toxic and corrosive. (There hadn’t been any used for some years for that reason, but the formulas were “on the books”). I am sure you know what Scott’s Phenyle is.

      40

  • #
    Steve

    But wait theres more…..

    The madness rolls on.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/collector-wind-farm-project-recommended-to-go-ahead-20131011-2vcu1.html

    A NSW government recommendation for a 63-turbine wind farm to proceed at Collector will be met with strong opposition at a community meeting, according to opponents of the project who say they’ve been “shafted” by the planning process.

    Individuals from the community will get five minutes each to address the PAC at the meeting, while organisations will get 15 minutes – but Mr Hodgson said it wasn’t enough time to go through all their objections.

    21

    • #
      unbolt

      Just wondering what land they are going to build it on if they are all opposed to it in Collector?? Do you believe in free market economics or only when it suits you??

      09

      • #
        Heywood

        How about not building it at all?

        61

        • #
          unbolt

          A friend has 2 on his farm near Portland and he loves the income, money for jam. Its only his neighbours that suffer wind-farm envy syndrome.

          014

          • #
            Mark D.

            Not suffering noise pollution dead bats and birds?

            Portland is the new home for California emigrants (after they soiled the once beautiful state of California).

            Money for jam?

            Idiots.

            100

          • #
            Heywood

            You have a friend?? …or do you mean another member of the collective.

            I am glad your ‘friend’ is enjoying the benefits of subsidies provided by everyone else.

            40

          • #
            AndyG55

            Will be funny to watch his reaction when the subsidies are cut.

            What will he do with those ugly, useless bits of garbage on his property.

            (and no, I don’t mean you visiting him)

            40

            • #
              Backslider

              What will he do with those ugly, useless bits of garbage on his property.

              I would imagine that he will sit there and admire them for their beauty.

              The USA is littered with these now non functioning turbines.

              10

      • #
        Dave

        Collector Windmill site.

        1. Cullerin Range between the Hume Highway and the Collector-Gunning Road.
        2. Builder & Power developer is RATCH Australia.
        3. RATCH is owned by Thai power generation company, Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding PCL.
        4. RATCH-Australia owns or has an interest in four power stations and three wind farms in Australia.
        5. APP is helping RATCH Australia Corportaion (RAC) realise the value of its wind farm portfolio

        Another overseas company that will build and own this windmill jungle at Collector, while we pay the (over priced) subsidies for them to produce occasional little bits of electricity.

        Turbines & towers imported.
        Engineering imported
        Construction imported.
        Reinforcing steel imported.
        Sand & Gravel – Australia but cement imported.

        Australia will do the environmental plan APP

        Whoopee! Australia going to receive pay lots of money for this one.

        Environmental vandalism.
        Windmill Green Vandalism.
        Killer of animals and surround plant life.

        100

  • #
    ian hilliar

    Perhaps the ABC would, in the interest of improving their market share, consider rescreening the fabulous Australian documentary “Rats in the Ranks”, especially if Mr Albanese wins the popular ALPBC vote. Apparently still available from ABC shops at only $19.99. The timing would be perfect, and surely it is in the public interest to understand exactly how politics works at the local level, now that Albo is approaching the peak of his political trajectory.

    31

  • #
  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    Everyone please note that the policy of Australia’s first libertarian party, the Liberal Democratic Party whose first Senator was just elected, is to privatise the ABC: http://ldp.org.au

    The ABC is a disgrace. There is simply no reason why the population should be forced to fund a permanent public left-wing group love session. It is inevitable that government-funded broadcasting will degenerate into permanent propaganda for big government, just as it has in all other countries in the world.

    There is no way and no reason it should be reformed. Those who want to watch and listen to it need to pay ALL the costs, simple as that. It should be abolished.

    81

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, an effective temporary short term fix would be to keeping sacking the Mark Scotts until they get one who will dismantle the Leftist Hiring Policy for “journalists”. After a suitable period, a decision could be made about privatisation etc. This would need to be completed before the next federal election.

    31

    • #
      unbolt

      “This would need to be completed before the next federal election.” Why, because it would be an election liability?

      07

      • #
        Justin Jefferson

        Should be done now.

        10

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        OK, I’ll do the unthinkable and take “unbolt” seriously for a moment.

        yeah, It would be an election liability because my impression is most people in Australia don’t think the ABC should be privatised. They think having one tax-funded national broadcaster which theoretically answers to democratic government (not corporate sponsors) provides some sort of balance in the media landscape.

        The problem is that the ABC is a pulpit for giving people what the *ALPBC* believes they *should* have and *should* want rather than what actually appeals to the plebs. I guess it is a chicken-and-egg argument. Does the media lead or follow the people? Actually I would hope the answer is “both”.

        On news, current affairs, and documentaries, the media should lead the people – to avoid the public narrative spiralling into some stagnant complacent echo chamber. The goal here is to relay the facts and place them into their historic and statistical perspective, with extra analysis provided by people whose bias is declared upfront (nobody is free from bias, so at least say what it is). That’s where the ALPBC is in tatters, through filtering out or glossing over Green/Left errors and defeat, whilst giving a uniformly ALP/leftists bent on many other news events.

        On all the other programme types, entertainment and so forth, the TV stations should be following the people. Again the ABC airs numerous dreary BBC offcuts that they receive from their leftist comrades in Britain, despite these series being wanted and enjoyed by virtually nobody. If the government wasn’t funding these they would never go to air.

        It’s not that I hate the ABC fundamentally, but their funding and culture biases their editorial behaviour and programming choices in some programmes, and in a way that departs from the ideal outlined previously. They should clean up or get cleaned out.

        On a positive note, I actually think the staff of the ABC have learned how to do more with less, since over the years the ABC has been defunded by both of the main political parties. The budget increases for the ABC have not kept pace with inflation since about 1987. Keeping a lid on their funding just means they become more efficient at spin, it doesn’t stop the spin.

        50

        • #
          Justin Jefferson

          yeah, It would be an election liability because my impression is most people in Australia don’t think the ABC should be privatised.

          That’s your impression. And…? That determines the fact, does it? What if you’re wrong?

          What if it depends how the question is put?

          Of course if “most people” want the ABC, then they can go right ahead and pay for it themselves, cant they?

          There is a more fundamental issue here, which of course the ABC ignores, so please don’t go baying off after their red herring. If most people want their religion funded by everyone else, you don’t think it’s legitimate to get government to force everyone into paying for it, do you? The principle is no different. Indeed most of the beliefs of the ALPBC are religious in the true sense of the word, it’s just that they’ve substituted blind worship of State for blind worship of the Church. But all the other characteristics are there:
          - belief in a superbeing
          - that is all-powerful (can change the weather, cure the sick, create wealth out of thin air by special rituals (stamping paper with special squiggles), all-knowing (knows that natural phenomena are caused by man’s sin), all-good (presumptively selfless and altruistic)
          - that is capable of suspending the laws of nature (scarcity) in favour of its suppliants
          - with concerns over and above those of ordinary selfish mortals
          - aiming at some greater and higher social good of its own
          - justifying treating people as property
          - charged with showing people the way to salvation
          - by self-denial
          - justifying the privileges of a higher caste
          - with a class of sycophantic priests (left-wing academics and ALPBC “journalists)
          - endlessly invoking the wonderful magic of the political class, the overlords
          etc. etc. etc.

          It’s sickening how mediaeval it is under its veneer of modernity.

          They think having one tax-funded national broadcaster which theoretically answers to democratic government (not corporate sponsors) provides some sort of balance in the media landscape.

          That’s just more of the kind of babble that the ALPBC is foremost in propagating. Where else do you hear that kind of jargon? It might sound good at first, but on analysis, it’s either meangingless, or intrinsically biased to the left wing.

          The implication is that there’s a thing called the “media landscape”, which it is the job of the knowing, the good, and the pope-holimost, to go around “balancing” for the rest of us schmucks who don’t know what’s reality is or should be.

          Even if we accepted that premise, obviously the ABC isn’t balancing anything. They’re running bigotted ignorance campaigns on any political issue they want to, and indoctrinating every rising generation into believing all the refuted nostrums of socialism. Classic examples are their endless propagation of the beliefs that
          a) the wealth of one comes from depriving someone else
          b) employment is an intrinsically exploitative institution
          c) profit is wicked
          d) the use of natural resources is immoral
          e) Aborigines and women constitute exploited minorities who deserve special privileges
          f) all our social problems come from not enough government, taxation, regulation, bureacuracy
          and on, and on, and on.

          The idea that there’s two views to be balanced, “conservative”, and “progressive”, is itself so biased and shallow and stupid.

          The fact is, there’s no reason why people should not pay for, and have to pay for, the media services that they want. There is no reason why one person should be forced to pay for the media services that someone else wants to consume. Full stop. End of story.

          20

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            “The fact is, there’s no reason why people should not pay for, and have to pay for, the media services that they want. There is no reason why one person should be forced to pay for the media services that someone else wants to consume. Full stop. End of story.”

            One could qualify this by saying that the consumer who PAYS for the service should have the right to use the service of their choice.

            In fact, the arguments which you put forward, Justin, regarding a State owned communications medium, is equally valid relative to education from kindergarten to academia. It is equally valid relative to health services as well, from the supply of pharmaceuticals to the operating theatre.

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Clearly, saving 0.26% of federal expenses is a hot-button issue for you.
            You could have avoided wasting most of your time and ours if you had bothered to read any further than my first paragraph. Yeah, the ABC is biased, I know. We know. Hell, even Fiji knows the ABC is used for Labor propaganda.

            The poll results show that it is the general public you have to convince, not me. The Australian populace claim in polls to put over twice as much trust in “The ABC” than they do in the “TV News Media” in general.

            The only part of your retort that niggles me revolves around a belief that you construe as fact: that as long as the ABC is government funded it can never be reformed to deliver neutral journalism. Since that is a statement about the future I can’t exactly argue against it, but I hope (when you simmer down) that you can acknowledge that it is not a fact and its not “inevitable”.

            Since nobody has ever tried to reform the ABC, could we not attempt some decent reform of the ABC Charter to set standards of neutrality in reporting and then have an independent ABC Monitor reprimand or fire journalists who repeatedly show ideological bias. The ASC tried to reform the Australian Institute of Sport once, so why not try with the ABC?
            The case for privatising it would only get stronger if an attempt at reform was made and still failed.

            In the other view, cutting off your arm is guaranteed to end your carpal tunnel syndrome, certainly.

            10

            • #
              Justin Jefferson

              You’re assuming there’s some justification of government-funding of TV and radio stations in the first place.

              The question is not whether the Australian public “trust it” more, it’s whether they’re willing to pay for it voluntarily.

              If it’s true that they value it more, for whatever reason, then they’ll continue to fund it won’t they?

              “as long as the ABC is government funded it can never be reformed to deliver neutral journalism”
              As long as it’s government funded obviously it can never be reformed so as not to be dependent on government.

              What is “neutral journalism” supposed to mean? There is some view that does not involve interpretation?

              Both the moral and pragmatic arguments for it are nonsense. It is just a relic of the world high tide of fascism in the 1930s.

              10

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Justin,

                A late note to say that my last remaining soft spot for the ABC is getting steadily eroded. Their news is indeed a tool of government and in egregious ways.

                What I’m increasingly wondering is whether they are a tool of the government bureaucratic class regardless of which party is in cabinet. The ABC, being staffed by useful idiots, are naturally attracted to the ALP and voluntarily give them and their social programmes a free ride, but the ABC may carry out whatever propaganda is needed by the government departments regardless of Party politics.

                Just consider this purported incident: http://mathaba.net/news/?x=633604
                It’s really quite suspicious.

                The problem you have on top of that is that any news organisation is subject to the same “bipartisan” pressure from within the government realm. The difficulties of ensuring the media serves the public interest goes way beyond just the ABC’s infatuation with the ALP.

                10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Just a quick reminder — as our major news outlets here in the U.S. point out every day, theres no guarantee that being independent of government funding will actually make them honest (neutral as you put it).

      Political bias is not something people set aside easily — unfortunately.

      10

  • #
    pat

    ***talk about contradicting yourself! lots of it in this piece plus public to blame for not using “anthropogenic”! LOL:

    7 Oct: ABC: Anna Salleh: Public ‘misread’ on climate change
    Uncritical reporting and poorly-formed survey questions have lead to a “profound misreading” of the Australian public’s response to climate change, a psychology conference will hear this week.
    Professor Joseph Reser will present a critique of recent climate change surveys and their communication to the public, on Friday at the Australian Psychological Society annual conference in Cairns.
    “I’m not trying to beat up the media or to be overly critical of my colleagues but there is a disconnect between what the data is saying, what’s out there in the media, and where the public is at,” says Reser, an environmental and social psychologist at Griffith University and the University of Queensland…
    ***”I think over the past five or six years in Australia there has been a serious underestimation of how concerned the Australian public is about climate change and how distressed they are at so little government action,” he says…
    ***”Going into the election there was a very clear sense that far fewer Australians accepted that climate change was happening than was actually the case,” he says…
    A further problem, says Reser, is that even research-based surveys often don’t acknowledge that the public tend to use the term ‘climate change’ to refer to what the scientific community calls ‘anthropogenic climate change’.
    Reser says, this confusion has resulted in many survey results misreading the public’s genuine response to climate change.
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/07/3861402.htm

    Reser made me think of Lewandowsky & sure enough…

    APS Annual Conference: Program, Friday 11 October
    Symposium: Environment and Disasters
    Jon Krosnick, Joseph Reser, Stephan Lewandowsky
    Public understandings and responses to climate change: The crucial role and findings of psychology-informed survey research and monitoring programs.
    https://events.psychology.org.au/ei/speakers/Cairns_Program.pdf

    20

  • #
    pat

    Myles Allen joins The Conversation, to shill for CCS, despite the failures:

    10 Oct: The Conversation: Myles Allen: Trillion-tonne budget means carbon capture is not optional
    But today’s latest report from the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute suggests the governments did not comprehend what this really entails.
    Carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects are struggling, with five cancelled and seven put on hold in the past year alone. As the IPCC gathered in Stockholm, neighbouring Norway announced the cancellation of their flagship Mongstad CCS project…
    We have already burned through more than half of those trillion tonnes of carbon, with at least double the remainder lying in economically viable reserves of fossil fuels, and an energy industry that keeps finding more.
    Don’t blame the industry. The value of our pensions is based on the assumption that these reserves will be sold and burnt. So limiting carbon emissions to a trillion tonnes means either we accept global warming beyond 2°C, or we develop CCS to use fossil fuels without releasing CO2, or the value of our pensions takes a hit.
    CCS is often seen as “one of a suite of options” in combating climate change. But once we accept that the world’s fossil energy stores will be used someday (and what right have we to tell the citizens of India in 2080 no to burn their coal?) then the only question that really matters is what fraction of remaining reserves will be captured and stored. If we are to meet the 2°C goal, that fraction needs to be at 50% by mid-century and heading for 100% by 2100. We might even need to “go negative” – pulling CO2 out of the air in order to stabilise the climate. That’s not something that can be done with low-energy lightbulbs…
    The maths are simple: to limit remaining carbon emissions to 450 billion tonnes, the fraction of extracted carbon we sequester must increase by 1/450th, or 0.22%, for every billion tonnes of carbon released into the atmosphere. That’s not a policy, that’s a fact…
    With the right geology, nature herself has demonstrated that CCS works…
    The price of CCS is relatively inelastic, so we cannot afford to wait until the carbon price is high enough for CCS to be viable and then expect to deploy it overnight…
    The only aspect of CCS that can truly be called “unproven” is this price…
    Anyone wishing to extract or import fossil fuel should be required to demonstrate that an increasing fraction of the carbon content of that fuel has been verifiably sequestered…
    Imposing a regulation on a few major companies is far simpler than negotiating a global carbon tax or emissions trading regime…
    To be fair and effective, the rules should apply to all fossil fuels – the effects of carbon on the climate is the same whether from coal, oil or gas…
    http://theconversation.com/trillion-tonne-budget-means-carbon-capture-is-not-optional-18968

    btw ABC’s Anna Salleh, who did the piece with Joseph Reser, uses “climate change” everywhere in this article, without ever once mentioning “anthropogenic” as, indeed, most MSM does all the time. Reser should complain. of course, the public is angry the CAGW crowd dropped the “global warming” bit too:

    10 Oct: ABC: Anna Salleh: Tropics on track for early climate change
    Tropical areas are likely to experience the effects of climate change much earlier than other parts of the globe, according to a new study…
    The common wisdom is that as the globe warms the poles will suffer the brunt of climate change, says Mora,who is co-author of a new report published today in the journal Nature.
    “When we talk about climate change, some of the first images that come to mind are melting ice and polar bears.”…etc etc
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/10/3864707.htm

    20

    • #
      ianl8888


      With the right geology …

      Of course, Allen does not specify this. If he did, it would be seen that the transport cost of filtered CO2 from the power stations to the rare “right” geology for burial is astronomical with the sheer volume of gas to be transported 365/7/24. I have as much contempt for Allen’s sophistries as he does for geoscientists


      Anyone wishing to extract or import fossil fuel should be required to demonstrate that an increasing fraction of the carbon content of that fuel has been verifiably sequestered

      Again, note that it is the miners who are bashed, not the actual burners of the fuel (ie. the power stations, vehicle owners etc). This particular sophistry is designed to avoid clobbering the general population with punitive taxes/fines/levies and is based on the assumption that the populace doesn’t see the connection between extraction processes and their end products. In the case of city populations, this assumption has some validity, but it still remains a slimy sophistry

      30

  • #
    Tim

    Every form of addiction is bad, not matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism.

    Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

    20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Addiction in itself is bad though passion, drive and determination are necessary to progress. Once administrative types take over and are kidding themselves with talking about championing change and other such platitudes it is time for the entrepreneurs to move on.

      30

  • #
    Terry R

    I personally think that the ABC’s bias is systemically entrenched to the point that the ABC can’t see it. This massive group think stems from their employment criteria. You can’t even get a tea lady’s job without signing a contract stating you are pro feminist, pro multicultural ect. There is no possible way of getting the ABC to follow its impartiality guidelines without closing it down and sacking everyone and I often wonder if that is their strategy. Force the govt to close them down, kick up a massive stink on the daily front page of the herald , age and guardian with the evil Liberals attacking Your Freedom of Speech as their mantra and get all the unions behind them. After the dust settles , it would leave the ABC even more untouchable and the unions smelling like roses rather than the corrupt sewer that they do now.
    No I think the course of action should be to split the ABC into two entities , the current ABC to have two channels and a new conservative body broadcasting on the other two channels.
    You could call the current lot ABC RED 1 and 2 and the new Conservative arm ABC BLUE 1 and 2.
    Split funding evenly between the two with no employment guarantees between the two bodies. Only then would you actually get the impartiality that is dictated under the ABC charter.

    40

  • #
    Independanthinkingwhatsthis

    The problem is extremism by the elite or the socialists is neither good for our country society or future.
    Balanced thinking, thoughtfulness, negotiation seem to be looked at with disdain in current thinking ?
    Balance is what stops extremism from taking hold in our society or civilsation.
    Think deeply about what you wish for for yourselves and our country and children, everything has consequences.

    10